Hotcoldwetdry Targets To Cost UK Motorists
It’s interesting how the social beliefs of Leftists end up hitting everyone in the wallet, eh?
(Telegraph) Motorists will subsidise a move to ensure ten per cent of transport energy comes from renewable sources such as biodiesel made from maize or sugarcane.
However, the target will cause the cost of biofuel to increase and demand for renewable sources of energy from around the world will also push its cost up.
We’re only talking about (now) 35 Pounds, about $59 US. But, as we all know, these things have a way of escalating once the Real World intrudes. But, that’s real money to real people, which, when added on to all the other skyrocketing costs caused by hotcoldwetdry legislation and rulemaking, makes the cost of living artificially high.
The report found that the target is badly backfiring by causing hunger in the developing world as the demand for the biodiesel will mean that farmers grow maize for feeding cars rather than people.
The amount of land used to produce enough biofuel for just 3.5 per cent of UK transport fuel in 2008 could have fed 127 million people, according to the report.
The writers of the article isn’t a “skeptic”: Louise Gray is a dedicated Warmist, and if she’s highlighting the fact that all these biofuels can cause rising prices and hunger, perhaps they should be rethought. This is life in Warmist World: get hysterical, demand that Something Be Done, throw money at it, pass rules and laws, and then realize that “oh, crap, this won’t work, it can actually make things worse.”
Facebook62.5kTwitter74Email1 Considering how often we see horrific stories of animals being abused and murdered by sadistic monsters, it’s a nice break to see the often unnoticed acts of kindness towards...Read More
FacebookTwitterEmail Some Warmists have called for others in the Cult Of Climastrology to tone it down, stop being so over-the-top
FacebookTwitterEmail Tyranny is always an end in itself for tyrants — but it can’t be marketed that way. Nazis sold
FacebookTwitterEmail Why? Because “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” After a few paragraphs